Let's say you've just had federal agents come by your house. For many, the last thing thing they'd do next is swing by another agent's house and take photos. Yet authorities say that's what Elisha Strom did.

Police portray the red-tressed 35-year-old as an unrepentant stalker who terrorizes men in blue with online musings and photos on her blog. But to Strom, the most recent escapade–- for allegedly stalking an agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms–- it's just another bogus charge intended to get her to take down the site, I HeArTE JADE.

The most recent contretemps arose in August when Strom was arrested for allegedly stalking ATF Agent John Stoltz. In his August complaint, Stoltz accuses Strom of stalking him from February 2008 to August 17, 2010. He notes that her website includes photos of him, his car, his license place, and his residence to bolster his allegation.

“Due to Strom’s postings, I fear she or someone viewing the website will locate and kill or harm me and/or my family,” writes Stoltz.

Strom claims she hasn't seen Agent Stoltz since July 2009, but she readily concedes that she took photos of his house in Greene County August 30.

"That was after sending four ATF agents to my house," explains Strom, claiming the ATF was trying to intimidate her.

"She was at the officer's house on the 30th [of August]," said Commonwealth's Attorney Ron Morris. "We think that's an important event in this series of stalking."

The original warrant was dismissed and the new warrant covers a period of August 31, 2009, to August 30, 2010. Defense attorney Adam Rhea objects to the new warrant that was presented in Greene General District Court on October 27, the day Strom was supposed to go to trial for a case that "has been on the docket quite some time," Rhea noted.

"It's an unusual phenomenon in my experience," says Rhea after the hearing. "It's unusual how many times the date on the warrant has been changed."

And Strom objects to being arrested twice for what's basically the same stalking charge.

Although she's a former white supremacist, Strom drew sympathy from the ACLU in 2009 when she was thrown behind bars for a month for publishing the address of another law enforcement officer's house. Even though such information was publicly available from government websites, Virginia law appears to make what she did a Class 6 felony, and the ACLU contends such a law is unconstitutional.

Earlier this year, Delegate Rob Bell successfully pressed a bill through the General Assembly that makes it possible for law enforcement officers to petition the court to have their property records removed from government websites if they feel threatened. What law enforcement hasn't been able to do is quash Strom's website. At least not yet.

On October 25, she writes on I HeArTE JADE that the prosecution offered her a deal: plead guilty to stalking and take down I HeArTE JADE in exchange for a 12-month suspended sentence. If convicted, she faces up to a year in jail.

Strom replies with a deal of her own: If authorities drop the charges, she won’t ridicule them for two weeks. She'll be in court again on December 1.

Correction 4:30pm November 9: Strom had not been arrested when she took photos of the ATF agent's house August 30.

56 comments

Jenny@UVA November 23rd, 2010 | 6:08pm

what in the heck is the point of her site? It seems kinda childish and creepy. I'm not saying she doesn't have the right to post that stuff...I just don't get why the heck she devotes her life to it. Bizarre.

Lis November 23rd, 2010 | 6:58pm

Is it time for some kind of civilian oversight board?

Enzo November 9th, 2010 | 7:59pm

You said:

What I don’t understand is why the hook is trying so hard to make this woman appear sympathetic. She’s so clearly taunting law enforcement and is associated with truly offensive beliefs and behaviors. What does she, or anyone, expect to happen?

The whole thing, including the media's take, is odd.

The issue is not ideology for this aging groupie/stalker, in my opinion (she adopted white separatism and then discarded it, just as she takes up with and discards men, using some of them to get revenge on her former "crushes").

She used law enforcement to "get" her husband and then she attacks and stalks the lawman she was working with. The lawman and his fellow agents tell her to back off, and her response is to start following and photographing dozens of them, and to claim she is sleeping with some to get info on others.

This is not normal, and I think a professional diagnosis is called for.

Bill Marshall November 9th, 2010 | 7:56pm

meanwhile said:
"no. One of her Ã¢â?¬Å?truly offensive beliefs” is white supremacy. Ã¢â?¬Å?Free speech” is not a Ã¢â?¬Å?belief”, but a right.
If you disagree with me, please feel free to state your opinion.
White supremacists are vile humans."

Do you feel the same way about muslims? Are they all vile because of the extremists? What about all the people who voted for the Nazi party.. were they all vile? Or perhaps were they uninformed, miseducated or even brainwashed into believing things that were untrue. There are a lot of people who grew up amongst blacks during segregation who believed that blacks were truly receiving a separate but equal education. They then witnessed blacks not succeeding and came to believe the retoric that blacks were inferior. They saw blacks arrested and assumed they were criminals instead of profiled. Children of true racial bigots grew up to believe what was instilled in them. So what you are saying is that if a person who was raised this way becomes enlightened then they are still a vile person?

If this is what you believe then perhaps you need some enlightenement.

And if you believe in free speech it IS a "belief" (you cannot take the US constituion with you to barbados but you can take your beliefs)

Wog November 9th, 2010 | 8:23pm

"The dogs bark, but the caravan passes on." Scarlett in GWTW - M.Mitchell

R wrote: Wait, people supposedly have sex with this woman? Do not believe.

Now, see, I haven't said anything even remotely as cruel as that, yet I'm the one people think is malicious?

What a sad commentary on our times.

Gasbag Self Ordained Expert November 10th, 2010 | 3:39pm

Mr/Mrs/Miss J, many decades ago only the big, strong and brave were hired. There were height and weight requirements, or you didn't become a cop. Only big tall muscular men were hired.

Times changed, they hire all sizes and shapes now. You can't take a 5'7" boy or 5'3" girl and make a Sylvester Stallone out of them.

And while being a cop still isn't in the Top 10 of Most Dangerous professions, a cop is still 10 times more likely to be killed in the line of duty in 2010 than a cop was 30 years ago. I think the increased violent nature of today's criminals, based on guns and drugs, give sthem a reason to be scared. But, yes, some of them do take it to an extreme. That's the ones you're probably speaking of.

I've had 2 traffic stops performed on me in the last 14 years. And both times the cop involved seemed to be absolutely and totally scared to death. Other than what I said above, I am at a loss for words to really explain it though.

GBSOE wrote, "There’s no effective forums to file a complaint on cops, firemen and teachers."

I guess you have never heard of an administrator or a school board. How about a Board of Supervisors Member, a State Legislator, an editor of a newspaper, the local television media, a local talk radio host, or wait a minute, how about a blog that doesn't target the private lives of public servants? I don't know your background and wouldn't presume to pry into your private life. If you have been wronged in this way by those in authority, then you have an axe to grind. Two wrongs don't make a right and if you don't condone what she is doing, then why the vociferous defense of her right to do so?

JJ Malloy November 10th, 2010 | 5:36pm

"Mr/Mrs/Miss J, many decades ago only the big, strong and brave were hired. There were height and weight requirements, or you didn’t become a cop. Only big tall muscular men were hired."

They also used to be big brutes who served the rich more than then they kept order. One good example is them beating striking union members at the order of the factory owners. What is your point?

Lisa November 10th, 2010 | 6:50pm

I know that I am supposed to believe in freedom of speech but this is the sort of woman that makes me question my beliefs. Personally, I'd be happy if she just move to some other area and get a new stalking gig. At least we could get her off the local media outlets - which would truly be a service to us all.

Gasbag Self Ordained Expert November 10th, 2010 | 6:01pm

JJ, my point is they didn't walk around scared to death of their own shadows, like so many cops do nowadays. This is just my opinion though. And it seems as though Mr/Mrs/Miss J shares the same opinion. My gosh, they had five or six patrol cars show up when I was pulled over for allegedly not giving a turn signal a few months ago. (I saw five, my daughter said it was six) People getting mugged, juveniles harassing everybody on the downtown mall, young females getting abducted and murdered... and five or six patrol cars to do a simple traffic stop? Explain it to me.

VaTeacher, one of the forums you mention, "local media".... isn't this where Strom is sorta filing her complaint more or less? I've made it very clear above that I do not condone what Strom is doing. But she isn't doing anything the cop shoppes don't do themselves. It's OK when a cop shoppe publishes the address of a law enforcement officer (mine), but it's suddenly a crime when a civilian does it?

Then we have the cop shoppes charge her with stalking. That's all fine and dandy if they have the evidence to convict her. But to claim they will give her a suspended jail sentence for this if she takes down her JADE web site? What are the cop shoppes mad about, her stalking or her JADE web site?

VA Teacher November 10th, 2010 | 9:55pm

GBSOE, I can't speak for what the police are "mad about" other than the threat, implied or otherwise, to the privacy and safety of their families by her posting of the information. Again, I get it that your privacy was violated by someone in the police who used the same tactics against you. Does that make it OK for her to publish the information in question? She can make fun of them all she wants, that to me is protected speech. There is plenty of case law and statutes out there, or soon to be out there from Del. Bell, to make the officers' personal confidentiality portion of her website punishable as a criminal offense.
We don't live in an overly violent gang operations area as compared to more metropolitan areas, but how much longer will these people ignore an area like C-ville? Why make their potential attacks on police and their families easier with information like hers?

j November 10th, 2010 | 11:53pm

What I worry about is that it seems like she is not breaking the law but just p-ing off the police and they can lock her up because they don't like her. I don't like her much myself but we are supposed to protect peoples rights in America, right?

Supporter November 11th, 2010 | 6:31am

I luv your site "I heart Jade"

meanwhile.... November 11th, 2010 | 9:55am

Deleted by moderator.

fuzzy wuzzy November 11th, 2010 | 10:02am

It's freedom of speech, plain and simple. She's done nothing illegal. If I go on a public website (ie Albemarle County Revenue), and find the PUBLICLY LISTED address of a police, officer, FBI Agent, Ice Cream salesman, janitor, or anyone else, and then post it on my site, all of a sudden I'm a crook? That doesn't make sense. You have NO expectation of privacy when your in the public. If I stand on the public street and take a photo of you or your house, it's legal. f I take a photo of you driving your car down 29, it's legal. The cops are just angry that she's airing their dirty laundry. I say keep on trucking! Wish there were a hundred more like ya!

JJ Malloy November 12th, 2010 | 10:34am

what was the original intent of the blog?

boooo! November 11th, 2010 | 1:50pm

I must have missed what the vendetta was against JADE in the first place to warrant a blog that stalks certain members of the task force for years on end. I also must have missed what the blog owner was hoping to gain by doing this?

The phrase "choose your battles wisely" comes to mind. That would go not for what battles to engage in, but also what sorts of tactics to employ.

d November 11th, 2010 | 2:10pm

It seems like the original intent of the blog has ceased to be important. Because what she is doing on the blog is not illegal but still causes her to be harassed and arrested, continuing to write it has become about rights and not being intimidated. If she actually "stalks" people and threatens them, it is not OK. If she is being unlawfully prosecuted she should be supported and well represented.

boooo! November 11th, 2010 | 2:11pm

*That would go not only for what battles to engage in

not

That would go not for what battles to engage in

whoops.

jeezlouise November 12th, 2010 | 2:55pm

Eventually you will have to spill all the beans Jade.

Tim Brown November 16th, 2010 | 1:25pm

Im sure capitalizing the h, a, t, and e in the incorrectly spelled "hearte" is just a coincidence and has absolutely nothing to do with her intentions.

Jake November 15th, 2010 | 5:37pm

Fuzzy Wuzzy:

Thank you for your brilliant interpretation of First Amendment jurisprudence. I am thrilled that we have a constitutional scholar in our midst.

fuzzy wuzzy November 15th, 2010 | 5:43pm

Scholar? Not by a long shot. I am however someone who does believe in exercising and protecting my civil rights, and to do that, I need to be at a minimum educated on them. That is, unfortunately, much more than most people care to do, therefore they are willing to give up those rights so easily.

Gasbag Self Ordained Expert November 17th, 2010 | 2:43pm

Bungle, I offer my services.

But first, I need to know what level of stupidity you're currently at. :)

Oh and, Tim, given that you've resorted to (mis)analyzing the site's name to guess at my intentions, 'tis rather disingenuous of you to deliberately disregard my inclusion of the word "heart" also.

;)

Mr. Bungle November 17th, 2010 | 12:39am

Would anybody tell me if I was getting stupider?

BB November 9th, 2010 | 11:39am

Deleted by moderator.

Gasbag Self Ordained Expert November 9th, 2010 | 11:58am

I think it's pretty clear their ONLY intent is to have her web site taken offline. And I feel they will keep using BS charges to beat around the bush until they accomplish their mission.

What bothers me most about this entire thing is the fact that the Albemarle County cop shoppe had no problem releasing my residence address for all to see in 1997 while I was still an active sworn law enforcement officer. I am a big boy, and armed. I like to think I can take care of myself. But this placed my wife and then 4-year-old daughter in danger.

Tim Brown November 9th, 2010 | 11:56am

I think a very question is - How in the world does this girl afford the time to do all of this? Also, shouldn't it be "recovering white supremacist"?

meanwhile.... November 9th, 2010 | 1:32pm

How can you be a "former white supremacist"? Is there ANY evidence that she is not STILL a white supremacist or did the writer take license to make her appear more sympathetic> Shouldn't it also be noted that her husband was busted for downloading child porn?

While law enforcement's pursuit of this woman may be unusual, it doesn't appear to be illegal.

You lie down with dogs you get fleas and maybe, just maybe, you're a dog yourself. I don't have a problem with law enforcement protecting themselves from a white supremacist that lived in a house where child porn was being downloaded.

And she's hardly "red-tressed". Her hair is obviously dyed and dyed a rather hideous color at that.

What I don't understand is why the hook is trying so hard to make this woman appear sympathetic. She's so clearly taunting law enforcement and is associated with truly offensive beliefs and behaviors. What does she, or anyone, expect to happen?

billmarshall November 9th, 2010 | 2:57pm

Is one of her "truly offensive beliefs" freedom of speech?

I think the entire thing is ridiculous and hate to see the government give creedence to somone who has none.

They may succeed in getting her website down but she has already succeeded in making law enforcemnt look like crybaby buffoons, keystone cops, malicous prosecuters and, overprotective judges who guard their own at the expense of the Constitution.

cookieJar November 9th, 2010 | 3:11pm

First they came for the obviously dyed,
and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a red head...

meanwhile.... November 9th, 2010 | 3:11pm

no. One of her "truly offensive beliefs" is white supremacy. "Free speech" is not a "belief", but a right.

The article fails to mention that the first charge was dropped. Additionally, and incorrectly, it states the photo-taking came after the arrest.

As for my creepy estranged husband, using HIS so-called supremacist beliefs to claim I'M a danger to Law Enforcement makes about as much sense as using HIS sexual predilection for six-to-twelve-year-old children to claim I'M a child molester -- and both are irrelevant to this situation and my life, anyway.

One would think that if I was such a threat, the opposition wouldn't have to drag up the ideology, words, or actions, of OTHERS to make their case against ME; the reason they have to resort to that is because I personally have never said, written, or done anything illegal, and they darn well know it.

Catty comments about my appearance are also representative of only someone with the weakest argument. But cookies for trying!

Bottom line: THE ONLY WAY THAT BLOG IS COMING DOWN IS IF I DECIDE TO TAKE IT DOWN. Period.

Gasbag Self Ordained Expert November 9th, 2010 | 4:55pm

quote: "Bottom line: THE ONLY WAY THAT BLOG IS COMING DOWN IS IF I DECIDE TO TAKE IT DOWN. Period."

While I dont agree with the "blogger's" actions, I do respect the fact she refuses to be bullied. Maybe a parody blog would be more appropiate for local law enforcement.

VA Teacher November 10th, 2010 | 8:23am

Are we all to believe that her free speech is protected simply because she says it? There are larger issues here, namely the fact that your rights end where another's rights begin. If there are complaints that she has about law enforcement, then there are forums to address those complaints other than implying or making threats to a public servant and their family. Just because you serve the public, doesn't mean that you don't have the right to a private life. I'd say law enforcement is showing enormous restraint, all things considered. Let the charges be filed and let the courts decide. That is why we have a judicial system. If she truly believes in her right to say what she says, then she should be willing to sacrifice her freedom in defense of it. Certainly, others with much more valid and justifiable things to say have made greater sacrifices in defense of their free speech.

Gasbag Self Ordained Expert November 10th, 2010 | 8:48am

VaTeacher, what forums exist to file complaints about public servants in? If you file a complaint on a cop, who investigates this complaint? Want a free clue? The same group of people the person is employed by. This is just like having a group of foxes investigate whether one of them snuck into the hen house late last night. There's no effective forums to file a complaint on cops, firemen and teachers.

billmarshall November 10th, 2010 | 8:47am

Seems to me she is willing to let the courts adjudicate it, but lacks confidence that the court system will actually follow the law.

From what I have seen and read I don't think that is a wrong assumption.

The experiment would be if they ignored her would she lose interest and perhaps take up another cause.

Gasbag Self Ordained Expert November 10th, 2010 | 8:42am

She refuses to be bullied? What do you think all this time spent in jail before posting bond is? How about the time spent in jail after trial? How about the fact she lives 24 hours a day not knowing what violation of law they will next attempt on her? Ohh, she's being bullied! And they will continue to bully her until they can get a judge to give her several years in jail... which in turn will take her web site offline so to speak. That's their main goal anyway.

I don't condone what she is doing. But the same thing was done to me by the same people who now claim she's violating assorted laws. The false and misleading media release about me easily allowed the TV stations and newspapers statewide to film and release my home address and images of my home after my having worn a badge and gun for decades. And while I was still employed as a sworn law enfocrcement officer!